<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Chris Muller <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:asqueaker@gmail.com" target="_blank">asqueaker@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im"> That's what I thought I remember from briefly looking at it before,</div>
that the way it did that created lots of garbage. I hope I'm wrong.<br>
IMO, FileSystem should be at least equal to FileDirectory across the<br>
board, so we leave no reasons at all for someone to want to have<br>
FileDirectory in their image (which means they'd have to have both).<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>I don't think you can expect a general API that's designed for flexibility and usefulness across a broad range of applications to perform as well as an optimized implementation that you hand-tuned for your specific application. In fact, I'd argue that #<font color="#500050" face="arial, sans-serif">directoryTreeDo: shouldn't be part of the trunk, it should be an<font size="1"> </font></font>extension method in Banyan.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>Look at it this way: FileDirectory was missing a lot of features that you needed. Instead of using Filesystem, which provides those features, you added them to FileDirectory in a way that's highly specific to the needs of your application. Now you're worried that Filesystem isn't "equal" to FileDirectory, meaning that it's not tuned for your application. But if you put the same effort into optimizing Banyan+Filesystem, you'd be fine.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>If you don't want to put in that effort, that's fine too. FileDirectory will be a loadable package, so you can just make Banyan depend on it, and add it to your build script.</div><div style>
<br></div><div style>Colin</div></div></div></div>